Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, the Minister is quite right to say that these are early days. Several different proposals are being considered—I do not know which one the Prime Minister has endorsed. Is the Minister aware of the IAEA's projection that, whereas now 16 per cent of the world's electricity is produced by nuclear power in about 30 countries,at the moment 27 new nuclear power stations are being constructed? The IAEA believes, with some justification, that there is a huge expansion ahead of carbon-free or at least low-carbon nuclear power around the world. If it is not to lead to great dangers in the proliferation of weapons-grade uranium, that will require a very close and effective monitoring system indeed. Can she reassure us that the British Government take the issue very seriously, as do Japan, America, Russia and the other leading powers and that this is probably the way forward in a world that will be predominantly nuclear as regards electricity generation?

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, if there is to be disclosure, as the noble and learned Lord suggested, will there be a central register of complainants so that if this woman changes her name and makes an allegation somewhere else, as happened in this case—or if she keeps the same name and makes an allegation somewhere else— she can be traced? The CPS could take that into account in deciding whether to prosecute and disclose it to the offence.

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, would it help to resolve the issue if we were to revert tothe position under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976—which I had the great privilege of sponsoring and getting on to the statute book—by which there was anonymity for a male defendant unless and until convicted?

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, that is precisely the point. Victor Chandler, the Gibraltar-based bookmaker in question, is based oversees and, therefore, there are considerable issues under the Gambling Act in being able to exercise any jurisdiction.
	In July, the Sports Minister, Mr Caborn, said:
	"While the Gambling Commission has no jurisdiction over betting operators licensed outside Great Britain, it is continuing to build upon its co-operative relationships with overseas gambling regulators".—[Official Report, Commons,17/07/06, col. 98W.]
	Does that mean anything? What is really happening? What is the Sports Minister really doing to try to exercise at lease some kind of informal control over these oversees betting operators?

Lord Condon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the International Cricket Council, the governing body for world cricket, has memoranda of understanding in place with many betting organisations aroundthe world, including in the UK? Those arrangements have provided valuable information in the fight against match fixing and other corruption in betting in cricket. Will he therefore encourage such arrangements?

Lord Lyell: My Lords, the Minister was kind enough to mention integrity in sport. Is he able to give me some advice on one of the better scandals north of the border? It is nothing to do with the Premier League, but concerns the club in which I have an interest, Forfar Athletic, which was made to play Peterhead with about eight sick men. I understand that the sum of £250,000 was placed on fixed-odds betting. Forfar lost 8-0. I am not sure what the payout was, but corruption does not necessarily have to be in the Premier League. Can the Minister give me some advice on what might be done and, above all, on whether the rules apply on both sides of the border?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for reminding me of his role with Warrington Wolves. In that role he will recognisethat the Government tread warily with regard to the extent to which they impose restrictions on sports organisations that have their own structures for guaranteeing the effective prosecution of sport. I can assure him that rugby league, too, has signed up to the 10-point plan and that we therefore have a framework which deals with these issues within the United Kingdom. However, I recognise that there are particular problems with betting conducted through organisations outside our jurisdiction.

Lord Taverne: My Lords, the Government must be aware that the White Paper has caused a great deal of concern, as it does not seem to recognise that there is nothing new in the use of animal eggs and that human tissues and fusion products have long been used very profitably in medical research, as with xenograft models of cancer inserted into mice, for example. Would that be banned under the White Paper? There can be no question of chimera embryos being implanted in the womb; this is for research purposes only, to get round the severe scarcityof human embryos. Do the Government not realise that, if, tomorrow, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority decides in response to the Government's White Paper that the three applications before it should be banned, that would gravely damage Britain's reputation as a world leader in the field of stem cell research, which has attracted talent from all over the world, and endanger some very promising lines of research into serious disabilities that affect more than a million families in this country?

Lord Thomas of Gresford: moved AmendmentNo. 1:
	Clause 1 , page 1, line 7, at end insert—
	"( ) protecting and promoting the public interest;"

Lord Hunt of Wirral: I strongly agree. It is difficult to understand what has changed since the previous Lord Chancellor issued a consultation paper entitled In the Public Interest? I believe that he had it absolutely right—it is very much in the public interest that the reform of the legal profession should take place. But the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has quite rightly noticed that the terminology has changed. It has suddenly become of concern to the Government that the reform of the legal profession should be in the interest of consumers and no longer in the public interest.
	I thank my noble friends who served with me on the Joint Select Committee. This matter came to our attention and, in our report published on 25 July, we stressed the importance of bringing back "public". I pause for a moment to consider what that word means. It is much wider than the consumer interest. The consumer interest is important—it is part of the public interest, but it is of course the interest of those who have used, or who use, the services. There is a much wider concept here, which was rightly recognised by the previous Lord Chancellor, that any move towards reforming what has always been seen as an independent, impartial legal profession must be in the interest not just of those who use the service, but of the much wider public interest.
	The Minister has already heard me say at Second Reading and previously that the definition of "public" covers what could be termed as being in the national interest—the interests of this country as a whole. Is it in the interest of this country that we should have an independent, impartial legal profession? Of course it is. The consumer wants it pretty cheap, and quite rightly so, but not necessarily high quality. Although one always tries to seek the advantage of having not only value for money but also high quality, quality perhaps does not rate as highly as the cost with some consumers. Of course many consumers, particularly those of the criminal legal system, are to be found in most of Her Majesty's institutions. That we should be bringing forward reform in the interests of the criminals is not something which should be paramount in our minds. I am glad that the Minister smiled because she dared me to say that in this Chamber. Well, I have said it.
	The public interest covers what is in the interest of UK plc. It is clearly in our interests that our legal profession should continue to be respected across the world. I have been lobbied by many senior Silks. It is the only time I have ever really come across them—they tend to be exceedingly expensive. I remember once having breakfast with a very senior Silk who afterwards charged me £2,500 for the privilege. I will not go into the detail of that case, but there are Silks who practise in other jurisdictions. There are lawyers, solicitors and barristers who practise across the world—not only in Commonwealth countries and not only in those that accept the English system of common law, but on a much wider scale. It is therefore surely in the national interest that whatever bodies we establish under this Bill should be in the interest of UK plc.
	It has also come to our attention that these words apply not only to the Legal Services Board, but will apply to the Office for Legal Complaints and to approved regulators. Therefore, we are dealing with a very wide concept. I warmly applaud the words of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. I took the opportunity to surf the internet just before this debate to try to work out a definition of public interest. Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia, directed meto "common well-being", which is an interesting concept. It also reminded me that public interest is often contrasted with private or individual interest, so one could say that it is very different from consumer, private or individual interest. It is much wider. Wikipedia repeats the words of many philosophers throughout the ages who stress that the public interest is a crucial concept in much political philosophy. Protection of minority rights is arguably part of the public interest. It is also a defence against certain lawsuits.
	I was also just looking at the ruling on 11 October last year in a very important case by our Judicial Committee, upholding the vital principle of press freedom in the public interest. Therefore, "the public interest" is found not only in this amendment, but in other key locations. I could say much more on the subject, but it strikes me that the Minister has been listening carefully and nodding from time to time. Her body language is very acceptable to this House. Therefore, I will sit down and hope that she will respond positively.

Lord Lyell of Markyate: I support the objective of both amendments, although I slightly prefer Amendment No. 1. There is an important distinction between the point made by the Minister in her letter to the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, and the point that weare considering. Amendment No. 1 suggests that the regulatory objectives should protect and promotethe public interest. That is what I believe we should seek to do. The other three clauses—Clause 3(3)(c), Clause 27(3)(c) and Clause 113—simply require that those governed by those provisions "have regard to" the public interest. It is not quite the same thing. Protecting and promoting are stronger; the words are clear. I hope that the Minister, whose body language looks pretty useful, will rise to give us some comfort.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: I thought that it was uncharacteristic—not to say unworthy—of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, to suggest that, in putting forward this amendment, I was in some way trying to protect the interests of the legal profession. That is notthe case. I think that putting the consumer first strengthens a perception among the public that it is only the consumer or client who counts. The lawyer is not the paid mouthpiece of the client who is prepared to say whatever the client will pay him to say. He has a much more independent position. Perhaps the public perception is that lawyers are just paid mouthpieces, but the discipline and ethos of the legal profession are entirely against that—they are to act independently and to take into account the public interest first.
	If the Bill were simply about the relationship between the legal profession and the consumer, I am sure that it would be phrased in a much narrower way. However, the regulatory objectives in Clause 1 start with:
	"(a) supporting the constitutional principle of the rule of law"—
	I do not see much about consumers in that objective—
	"(b) improving access to justice;
	"(c) protecting and promoting the interests of consumers".
	When the regulatory objectives are expressed like that, surely it is right to include that primary purpose of the legal profession to protect and to promote the public interest.
	The Bill is not simply concerned with regulating the legal profession's relationship with consumers. The regulatory body, the LSB, has relationships with the Bar Council, the Law Society and other regulators and the regulatory objectives are to be used in connection with those relationships. I am very heartened by the expressions that we have heard from the Minister's lips—I leave out references to other parts. In the course of discussions before Report stage, I hope that we can sort out this point. If not, we shall pursue it. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Kingsland: moved Amendment No. 3:
	Page 1, line 9, at beginning insert "subject to the objectives in paragraphs (a) to (c),"

Lord Kingsland: Amendment No. 3 inserts the expression "subject to the objectives in paragraphs (a) to (c)" at the beginning of Clause 1(1)(d), so that it would read,
	"subject to the objectives in paragraphs (a) to (c), promoting competition in the provision of services within subsection (2)".
	Promoting competition is clearly a desirable objective. It is of particular importance in the Bill in regard to alternative business structures, to which we shall turn later on in Committee. However, our view is that the introduction of such structures, or indeed any other matters concerning competition, should not be capable of overriding the three principles expressed inClause 1(1)(a) to (c); that is, supporting the constitutional principle of the rule of law, improving access to justice, and protecting and promoting the interests of consumers. Only in the context of the achievement of those three objectives should the competition objective be given free rein.
	Quite apart from that point, I have two other issues on Clause 1(1)(d) I want to raise with the Minister. The first is that Clause 1(1)(d) refers to,
	"the provision of services within subsection (2)",
	which draws our attention to services that are provided by authorised persons. As a consequence of Clause 1(1)(d), will the OFT have responsibility—the responsibilities of the OFT are excluded from supervising services provided by authorised persons—or will the Legal Services Board and the OFT have co-responsibility for competition in this area? I am not sure of the position.
	I also ask the Minister about the expression "promoting competition". I suggest to her that it is not desirable for the LSB to have a role in actively promoting competition. I understand that the LSB ought to be alert to anti-competitive practices and have the power to act where it identifies them. That is quite different from the active promotion of competition, however. The market, the authorised persons who want to engage in certain activities, should be free to do so. Only if they engage in those practices in an anti-competitive way should the Legal Services Board be able to act. It should not in itself be able to take initiatives which seek to enhance competition.
	The Minister has not been given notice of that observation, and I understand if she wants to reserve her position at this juncture. We must at some stage, however, be clear about the relationship between the Legal Services Board and the competition powers in the Bill. I have said enough to give the Minister a basis upon which to respond, and I beg to move.

Lord Kingsland: In speaking to the question of whether Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 3A. I apologise to your Lordships for tabling that amendment so late, but the point that underlines it only came to me yesterday when I was looking through the Bill—not, I hasten to add, for the first time, but again.
	I asked to speak on clause stand part and tabled the amendment because I have come to the view that Clause 1, the regulatory objectives clause, applies to too many disparate regulatory authorities. Clause 1 applies not only to the Legal Services Board but also to the Office for Legal Complaints and to all the authorised regulators. These three different types of regulators have distinct and disparate functions. Perhaps the most startling difference is between the Legal Services Board and the authorised regulators. The Legal Services Board, as the Government have said on many occasions, is essentially a supervisory board, supervising the work of the other regulators. By contrast, the authorised regulators are the front-line regulators. Under the Bill, the Legal Services Board, in principle at any rate, intervenes in the work of an authorised regulator only if that authorised regulator is alleged to have been in some way delinquent.
	To have one set of regulatory objectives to cover three types of regulatory authority with very different responsibilities is not a sensible way of proceeding. It means that the regulatory objectives have to be so broad and loosely defined that they cover all three types of authority, but, because they seek to cover all three, each one is insufficiently pinned down by the objectives for the Bill to give an accurate picture of what it ought to do. Therefore, the regulatory authorities will have far more freedom of manoeuvre to act than they ought to have. The basis on which I oppose the question that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill and tabled Amendment No. 3A is that there should be not one, but three, objectives clauses inthe Bill: one for the Legal Services Board, one for the Office for Legal Complaints and one for the authorised authorities. That will enable the draftsmen to be much more specific about what it is that each one of these separate categories of regulatory authority ought to do.
	My draft of the new clause in Amendment No. 3A is submitted almost in the spirit of a probing amendment. Proposed subsection (1) seeks to set out what I consider the board's regulatory objectives ought to be—the objectives of the board alone—but I entirely understand that other noble Lords might take a different view. On mature reflection, I, too, might want to change the categories in proposed paragraphs (a) to (e) either to alter one or more of them or to add to them, but the point of principle is that each separate regulatory authority ought to have its own distinct objectives.
	We would then get from the Bill an understanding of the precise relationship that each of these authorities has one with another. It ought to have an extremely beneficial effect on the disease of whatis often described as "regulatory creep", which we find so often in other fields of regulation. I emphasise as I did when promoting the previous amendment that, because this is a self-financing scheme, it is particularly important that those who are paying for this regulatory regime are very clear about what they are getting for their money. The present structure of the Bill does not provide that.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: moved AmendmentNo. 4:
	Schedule 1 , page 112, line 6, leave out "the Secretary of State" and insert "Her Majesty on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor pursuant to the provisions of section 85(1)(b) of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005"

Lord Thomas of Gresford: We now come to an important part of the Bill, dealing with the independence of the Legal Services Board. The danger seen generally and reflected in the speeches at Second Reading is that the Legal Services Board be thought a body set up simply to introduce government influence into the legal profession. I am sure that is not the intention of the Government, and it is important that they make that absolutely clear in the Bill.
	The Legal Services Board is going to deal with a number of bodies—to take two, the Law Society and the Bar Council, which will presumably be approved regulators—that are well established, with a long history of self-regulation and completely independent of government. It is essential that the Legal Services Board itself be seen to be independent and to carry weight. It will deal with people in the profession who know that profession from the roots up. The board, consisting as it will of a number of lay persons, must demonstrate that it is a weighty body capable of giving directions, and independent of any government or political interference.
	The Bill simply provides that the Secretary of State, unnamed—it could be any Secretary of State, perhaps even the Home Secretary—is the person who appoints the Legal Services Board. We do not think that is adequate. The importance of giving stature to the board is such that the Bill ought to follow the procedure in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. Your Lordships will recall that when it was decided that the Lord Chancellor should cease to have the function of appointing judges and the matter was handed over to an appointments board, various levels of mechanism were introduced to make those appointments. In our view, the appropriate level of appointment is that set out in Section 85(1)(b) of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, wherebythe appointment is made by Her Majesty on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor, but a recommendation which is informed by the selection process of the commission set up under that Act.
	The sort of office holders that Section 85(1)(b) referred to are, for example, district judges and people of considerable importance and rank, certainly of no less or greater rank than one would envisage in a member of the Legal Services Board. Removing the appointment of members of the board from simply the Secretary of State—who can appoint anybody—to the mechanisms used for office holders seems a sensible way of proceeding.
	We will later debate in Amendment No. 5 and the amendments grouped with it the proposal thatthe appointments be made with the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice. I am sure that the objectives of those who tabled those amendments are exactly the same as mine—that is, to ensure independence, integrity and weight. In my view, it is far better to go to the machinery that we have in place, although it may need some amendment. It would require us to amend the first part of Schedule 14 of the Act to include members of the board as appropriate office holders, which could be done by a simple order by the Lord Chancellor. But we believe that the Lord Chancellor should be the person who makes the appointment and recommendation from a selection by the commission, and it is Her Majesty's appointment that guarantees independence. I beg to move.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: That was a very helpful steer as to the comparative powers of the Prime Minister and the Government. But on the Prime Minister's move to abolish the post of Lord Chancellor, which it appears that the Minister and the rest of the Government opposed, I do not want history to be rewritten—and the Minister is pressing me on this.
	If I recall the position correctly, we had the decision of the Prime Minister, Mr Blair, to abolish the post of Lord Chancellor, and we heard in this House that our Lord Chancellor and our Speaker had been abolished. There then arose the question of who would open the proceedings of this Chamber on Friday 12 June 2003. I think that I have the dates reasonably exact. A message came through fromNo. 10 asking whether this House would kindly agree to give the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor permanent leave of absence—or, at least, leave of absence for that day so that the whole mess could be sorted out. If I recall, this House decided not to give him leave of absence. I then have this wonderful picture, which I shall carry with me to my grave, of a small, rather rotund figure, encompassed in a huge wig and massive cloak, suddenly emerging as the new Lord Chancellor, re-established—

Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: The noble Lord may be aware that there have been moves, under a sort of freedom information parallel, to try to get from10 Downing Street the envelope on the back of which "the Lord Chancellor is abolished" was written.

Lord Kingsland: Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, while applauding Amendments Nos. 10, 13, 15 and 16, my preference is for the approach taken by Amendment No. 5, which is to require the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to consult and indeed to have "the concurrence of", in the words of the amendment, before making the appointment. Nevertheless, the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, is interesting.
	Where I find myself in complete agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, is over the substitution of the Lord Chancellor for the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State can be any Secretary of State. However unlikely it might seem to your Lordships, I suppose one might foresee in future responsibility for the Legal Services Board being transferred, say, to the Home Secretary. Could your Lordships' House be confident that the Home Secretary would have the same consideration for the rule of law as would the Lord Chancellor? After all, the Lord Chancellor is statutorily bound by the Constitutional ReformAct 2005 to take into account the rule of law. It is an obligation which is expressly placed on the shoulders of the Lord Chancellor. No Secretary of State is similarly encumbered.
	If, as I suspect she is going to when we come to the next group of amendments, the noble Baroness opposes the suggestion that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor should be required to obtain the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice in making the appointment, her case will be even weaker if she insists on the deciding authority being the Secretary of State and not the Lord Chancellor. At least if it is the Lord Chancellor alone who is taking this decision, he is obliged to take it in the context of his obligations with respect to the rule of law. No Secretary of State is under—

Viscount Bledisloe: I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, about the different duty that rests on the Lord Chancellor. Indeed, if he looks at the evidence given by the noble and learned Lord to the Constitution Committee, I think he will find that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has himself expressly recognised that he has a more positive and a more intense duty than that generally imposed on Ministers. I certainly think it is right that the appointment should be made by him.
	I confess I do not understand why the two sets of amendments are being treated as alternatives. The Lord Chancellor's recommendation can be made with the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice, whether it is the Secretary of State or the Lord Chancellor. The person should not be appointed without the concurrence of the head of the legal profession because he will be regulating it, and if the people concerned are incompatible, there will be chaos. It is therefore a mistake to treat the two sets of amendments as alternatives—they are cumulative. If the recommendation has to be made by the Lord Chancellor, the need for the concurrence of theLord Chief Justice is slightly less because the Lord Chancellor would be more likely to consult him. However, they are both highly desirable. The present amendment is essential and would fly in the face of the division of responsibilities which the Lord Chancellor has set out.

Lord Lyell of Markyate: I do not know whether it is in order for me to speak briefly. I want to make a point that I do not want to elaborate on but I think that it would be rather hypocritical of me simply to go along with what the Minister said. I believe that an objective analysis might find some difference in the degrees of independence of some of the bodies that have been appointed from time to time. I speak as a lawyer and have obviously declared my interest and I might be thought to be parti pris on this, but the importance of independence of the legal professions in any free society is great. Their duty to stand up to Governments and to the sometimes overweening power of the authorities of whatever sort, sometimes in moments of great unpopularity, is such that we should seriously consider a method of appointment which is even more clearly independent than the others. Of course, I support all the Nolan principles and those that the Minister has so eloquently adumbrated, but I am not completely happy inmy own mind that they always work. We should continue to pursue with a good deal of vigour what we are seeking to achieve by this and related amendments.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: It has perhaps escaped the Government that there is a conflict with the Government themselves in so many fields of the legal profession. The independence of the judiciary is guaranteed in this country because there is also an independent legal profession. If the Minister had ever had the experience I have had of appearing in jurisdictions where one has one's doubts about the independence of the judiciary, she would appreciate much more keenly how important it is that the legal profession retains its independence and is seen to do so by any means possible. That is why an analogy with other bodies or professions which are subject to regulatory regimes is inappropriate. I am not claiming that the legal profession is above everything else but it has a particular role to play in the constitution of this country: that is, the independent role of people who will stand up and shout against the Government. The history of this country has been illuminated by lawyers who have been prepared to do that. To this day, the arguments against government are pursued not only in the courts of this country but also in the European Court of Human rights. Standing up against the Government is in large part what the legal profession is about. If the Government are going to introduce a body which is to control, to regulate,the legal profession it is in their interest to ensure that it is seen to be as independent as possible of government.
	The Home Secretary is a Secretary of State. Many times during the past few months the current Home Secretary has criticised the judiciary and lawyers because of this conflict. He does not stand in the same position as the Lord Chancellor who has that statutory obligation regarding the rule of law. He is a person who gets involved on the government side. It would be disastrous if it were thought that a Secretary of State could put the squeeze on the legal profession in one way or another because he was not happy with the independent stance it was taking. It is an important point of principle that we have to pursue.
	Does the noble Lord agree that there is experience on the Continent, not least as the Weimar Republic gave way to the autocratic regime that followed, that judges, however much they might try to resist the power of the state, are in a much worse position to do so if they are not addressed by an independent advocate and the equivalent of what we have seen as the Bar in this country? It is a way in which the independence of the judiciary is surely linked to the independence of the profession which, if it is not independent, retracts from the independence of the judiciary itself.

Lord Lloyd of Berwick: I support the amendment. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, has just said, in particular, his reasons for preferring,
	"concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice"
	to "consultation". I shall say no more on the importance of the independence of the legal profession, because it was so well covered by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. The analogy of other regulatory bodies seems to be far removed from the importance of ensuring the independence of the legal profession.
	I shall say a brief word in support of what the noble Lord said about perception. As many of your Lordships will remember, perception was a key feature in the argument which the Government used during the passing of the Constitutional Reform Act. It was said over and again that the Law Lords, for example, must be removed from this building to the Middlesex Guildhall because they were not perceived to be independent so long as they were sitting here. If perception is important from that point of view, surely it is equally, perhaps even more, important from the point of view of the establishment of this body. If the chairman of the Legal Services Board is appointed by a Minister, it will be perceived by people—perhaps not by people with as much knowledge of these things as we have, but by ordinary people—as making the profession less independent of the Government than it should be. If that is true of the appointment of the chairman and members of the LSB, it is surely even more true of their removal from office, which, again, can be done by the Secretary of State. That point was not greatly emphasised by the noble Lord, but it does arise under Amendment No. 24. The provision to which it relates must be amended for the very same reasons. The dismissal of the chairman and members of the LSB seems to be absolutely contrary to any idea that the body is independent of the Government. I hope that the amendment will be approved in due course, as well as Amendment No. 24.

Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I wish to make a small point, without any notes. It may be thought that these arguments are advanced merely by great luminaries of the law, of whom there are many in your Lordships' House, such as those who have spoken—those at the top of the profession. My plea is for those at the bottom of the profession. I more or less abandoned my limited practice to remain in academic life and to take part in the proceedings of your Lordships' House in the 1970s. But I well know from my own case and that of students, whom I regularly saw go to the Bar, that the most important thing that is said to you, sometimes by people with whose outlook you violently disagree, is that you must say what you think is right. That belief, inculcated into a profession, is at the centre of what noble Lords have come to term "independence". It may be thought that independence is being talked of as some great luxury, but it is not a luxury; young barristers come to observe it as integral to their role.
	I am not saying, and I do not take other noble Lords who have spoken as saying, that the Government intend to interfere with that. But I can say with total conviction that if young students of mine were going from my seminars into a profession regulated by a board—I emphasise heavily the word "regulated"—they would think twice about whether they still intended to occupy their position as they rose through the ranks of their chosen branch.
	It is therefore essential that young students, who have no direct voice in your Lordships' House, know and can see in legislation that a new regulatory power introduced by Government over the profession that they intend to enter is appointed and exercises its powers with the maximum number of conditions imposed. They must be able to see that those whom they recognise as reasonably independent of government have a place in such matters. I believe that the Government will come to accept that that must be made clear in the Bill because I believe that they intend that the profession should remain independent. However, the profession must be made clearly to appear, from a student's point of view, to be still in that condition.

Lord Bach: What the Joint Committee said on this cannot be taken as gospel or as binding what this Committee decides to do. But it is worth repeating the majority view of the Joint Committee—the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, has already referred to it—in paragraphs 142 and 144 of volume I of its report. The committee concluded that the Secretary of State should do the appointing but only after full consultation with the Lord Chief Justice. I argue that it reached that view because Sir David Clementi came to the same conclusion. Sir David was quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, who so ably chaired the committee, as saying:
	"Given the need for independence, and the objective of the rule of law, it seems right that the judiciary should be involved in the appointment".
	He continued:
	"The proposal of this Review is that the appointment by the Chairman and Chief Executive should be made by the Secretary of State in consultation with a senior member of the judiciary".
	The Committee should consider carefully that view when deciding on this Bill. It is worth emphasising that Sir David Clementi did not support the conclusion that the appointment had to be made with the "approval" of the Lord Chief Justice, or with his "concurrence"—if there is any difference in the meaning of those two words.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: This has been a debate of great passion and I will think very carefully about all that has been said. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. I knew when I saw her in the Chamber that I needed to have the Scottish information in front of me. Indeed, she is absolutely right. The Scottish Parliament has taken a view on the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and the role of the Lord President of the Court of Session exactly as she identified. I do not accept her briefing about the potential for some kind of superstructure. I have not received a copy myself, but I will look carefully at what the Law Society of Scotland is saying.
	I was trying to say in our previous debates, clearly not as effectively as I would wish, that the model of regulation is one from which I begin. It is not an attempt to say that I do not recognise the importance and value of the independence of the legal professions at all. It is to say that the model of regulation—because this is a regulatory regime—is the one from which we begin. But I take the points that have been made about independence. I hope that Committee Members will realise that although I will not agree to the amendments, I none the less understand the point that has been made and I am thinking carefully about these issues and listening very carefully to what has been said.
	I cannot resist going back to the 288 references, because I went through them on the back of what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, said at Second Reading. There were so many of them. A whole range of other clauses—45 clauses have been added over time—are actually about the Secretary of State being the conduit back to Parliament, so although it feels like a huge number, I ask Committee Members who are concerned about it to recognise that it is quite often the best and most effective way of making sure that, for example, we have affirmative action by the Government. Indeed, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee refers in a number of cases to that. Although it feels like a huge number, Committee Members should recognise that the vast majority are positive because they are ways in which Parliament is able to hold the Government to account about what is happening.
	My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been very careful never actually to say that he expects to be Prime Minister. He has said that decisions will be made by whoever leads the Labour Party and is therefore Prime Minister. For my part, I will be perfectly delighted if he becomes Prime Minister, but he has never said it and I should make that clear.
	The noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, and other noble Lords made interesting points. I am grateful to the chairman of the Law Society and indeed the chairman of the Bar Council, who have discussed the international perspective with me. I will spend a weekend in Dresden with the Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting of Ministers under the presidency of the German Justice Minister, and I have already planned to talk to her about the position. I know that the German Bar has often been raised as an issue. I have also talked to the European Commissioner for Competition, Neelie Kroes, in my capacity as the representative of the DCA on European Union matters. She is very keen and interested in what we are doing on legal services and has a positive perspective about the opportunities that there could be.
	I have not received any representations of any kind from international bodies, and I do not believe that there have been any to the department about what this might do, but I will do my own research by talking to colleagues in other countries. If I find any information, I will put it to your Lordships' House as well as to my colleagues in the department.
	The noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, also mentioned the value of pre-legislative scrutiny. I agree completely. The importance of that may be the only thing I agree with him completely about.
	My noble and learned friend's remarks have been referred to two or three times. He was not referring to his own view of either the office or the office holder of Lord Chief Justice, which both he and I would hold in the highest esteem, both as an individual and as an office. He was referring to the perception that exists—of which I have heard. I am not saying for a second that it is correct, but there is a perception that the Lord Chief Justice is an eminent lawyer, of the profession and therefore part of it. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, talked about perception in the context of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. Inevitably, if you are trying to deal with consumer confidence, you have to be alive to the issue of perception. It is not the prime reason why I do not accept the amendment, but it is important. My noble and learned friend was referring to that. He would be the first to argue the eminence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips, and the first at the barricades to support the role of the Lord Chief Justice, so I hope that his words will be taken in that context. I am positive that that is what he meant, having looked at Hansard. We should not forget that perception is important, and think about it in this context.
	There are lots of issues relating to the debate about concurrence or consultation. I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is saying and agree withthe differences that my noble friend made between the two. The noble Lord argued that you could not actually appoint somebody if you were doing it in consultation with anybody else and they disagreed with you. But other organisations would feel strongly that they should also be consulted, not least perhaps some of the more eminent consumer organisations that have worked closely on this Bill and feel passionately about the importance of the issue, and there may be others. We are not saying under any circumstances that the Lord Chancellor would not consult people; we are saying that we do not want that specified in the Bill. If an amendment were proposed to make a change about consultation, I fear that the Government would reject that too. We do not think that it is right to have one individual as the only person who would be consulted. There would be opportunities—indeed necessities—when the Secretary of State concerned would be keen to consult people about the right appointment.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Yes indeed, and the noble Lord's position is absolutely clear. I was indicating that the principle that Members of the Committee are looking for is to ensure that we have fully considered the issue of independence and whether further steps could be taken. Noble Lords are clearly suggesting that they would not be satisfied unless those steps were on the face of the Bill. I take that away, and I listen with great care. I was not committing to the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, that there would be something on the face of the Bill that I might return to, because I simply do not know. I will not make a commitment that I cannot guarantee I could honour.
	I understand the points being made. Noble Lords may decide that they want to vote at this juncture and do whatever is the will of the House. It is entirely up to your Lordships, of course. I will not commit further than that because I cannot. We are absolutely not willing to accept this amendment, or an amendment on consultation.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: moved AmendmentNo. 9:
	Schedule 1 , page 112, line 12, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor"

Lord Hunt of Wirral: So do I. I also strongly support the words of my noble friend. I know that we have debated this already and that reference has been made to the positions of the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State under this Bill. We are in something of a quandary, because when we have a Lord Chancellor, who is responsible for the operation of the legal system and is required, under his oath of office, to respect the rule of law, we have confidence that the occupant of that post will follow the example of his learned predecessors and maintain the independence of the legal profession and all theother values that we have talked about in today's debates.
	The transition from a Lord Chancellor to a Secretary of State is an uncomfortable one. This Bill refers only to a Secretary of State, who could be any of the Secretaries of State. We are filled with nervousness about the transitional period. That is why I amvery grateful to the noble Lords for tabling thisseries of amendments and to my noble friend forhis amendment—Amendment No. 36, I believe. Responsibilities could be transferred to a Minister whose other departmental responsibilities would cause him or her to give less weight to the importance of maintaining an independent, strong, diverse and effective legal profession. That is where we are all coming from. These are not great party-political issues—far from it. We are united in wanting to see reform of the legal profession that maintains all the very high standards that we have been so proud of. We want to continue being proud of the international standing of the legal profession of England and Wales.
	As I understand it, responsibility for these issues currently rests with the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, rather than with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, as a result of a transfer of functions order, made shortly after that initial decision to abolish the post of Lord Chancellor, which was then reversed. At the time—and I am not criticising anybody in this House—the issues raised by that transfer of responsibility were not properly considered, either publicly or in Parliament. Ensuring that the functions rest with the Lord Chancellor would help significantly to demonstrate to sophisticated international audiences that the new structure for regulation of legal services does not open the legal profession to political control. That, in essence, is what we are talking about: political control from a government Minister. The fact that the Lord Chancellor is required, under his oath of office, to respect the rule of law, would reinforce that.
	If the Bill were to be amended along the lines suggested, it would also be desirable to ensure that the position could not subsequently be changed by a transfer of functions order. This could be done by excluding the functions concerned from the permitted scope of orders under the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975, in much the same way as was done in respect of the Lord Chancellor's functions relating to the judiciary in the Constitutional Reform Act. I very much hope that the Minister might reflect on that. I note that the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill refers only to the Lord Chancellor. It would be very helpful if the noble Baroness could explain why that Bill differs so fundamentally from this Bill, which refers to the Secretary of State.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: moved AmendmentNo. 11:
	Schedule 1 , page 112, line 15, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 not moved.]

Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract: It has not been my habit, in the 10 years that I have been in this place, to attend legal debates. I have been attracted to do so arising out of the activities of some—I repeat "some"—members of the legal profession who, I believe, have been cheating mine workers. I will not go any further down that lane; my feelings are well documented in debates in this House. Since I have been coming to these debates, I have enjoyed some of them, and I have been bored some of the time. I acknowledge the skills of the senior lawyers and the rest of the lawyer fraternity in this House. Since I have been attending these debates, I feel better informed.
	As the House is aware, the Bill states that only the first chair of the LSB will be a non-lawyer. To demonstrate its independence from the profession, and to give confidence to consumers, the non-lawyer criterion should also apply to all future chairs. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the first chair should be a lawyer. What is the reason? My amendment is to leave out "first". I am being looked at from down there; I do not know whether I am confusing someone.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: I support this amendment. I have to confess that I feel a very subjective involvement in its terms since it is at least 10 years since I practised law myself and I have certainly forgotten more law than I ever learned. But I think that there are still quite a number of people who obtain legal qualifications, practise briefly and go into other lines of business or other professions whom the Government would have no reason to wish to exclude from serving in the way that this Bill provides. It might even be considered an oversight to have been so restrictive in this respect.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am grateful for the contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lyell, on this issue. Indeed, when this amendment was tabled we all started to think about eminent people we know who begin their careers in the law and then become experts, advocates or campaigners in a whole range of things, leading on from their early legal career.
	I think noble Lords know what we are trying to do here. It is very important for there to be a huge statement of confidence in the first chairman bringing in the transition, and we think it right that that should be a lay person. We have said subsequently that that should not be a criterion that is overarching. A number of criteria will be considered. I do not really think I have to say to the noble Lord that someone who is quite clearly coming in to enhance their own career would be spotted through the process along the way. Lots of discussion goes on about the people who put their names forward, so I am less worried about someone doing that than he perhaps is. I am not sure about 10 years, either. I think 10 years is quite recent, particularly in your Lordships' world. But I do take the point about people briefly practising 25 or30 years ago and then moving on as not being a suggestion that they are linked to the profession. I am very nervous about linking anybody to the profession in that way.
	What I would like to do is take this away. I have had one brief discussion with my noble and learned friend about this today. We wanted to do two things: have a think about what we might do, and talk to the consumer groups that feel very strongly about this to explain our thinking so that we keep that balance right. I will come back with a suggestion perhaps for the next stage. But the point that is being made is that somebody who a very long time ago qualified and practised briefly in law and is the eminent person may be debarred. I had rather hoped that this would be in secondary legislation. This is a classic case of where being able to amend something because you have moved on would be better, but it is in primary legislation so we need to think about how we make sure we do not exclude eminent people of the future. I take the point.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: moved AmendmentNo. 17:
	Schedule 1, page 113, line 17, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]

Lord Hunt of Wirral: This amendment stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Kingsland. Its purpose is to insert in paragraph 3 of Schedule 1, dealing with the Legal Services Board, that, in appointing persons to be ordinary members, the Secretary of State must,
	"secure that persons are appointed on merit and in accordance with the principles appearing to them to represent the best practice in making appointments to public office and must"—
	then the clause continues—
	"have regard to the desirability",
	et cetera. Really, this amendment seeks to do what the Select Committee recommended in our report, namely that there should be some reference in the Bill to Nolan principles. We have already dealt with Nolan principles, but what this amendment is seeking to do is ensure that all the appointments of members of the Legal Services Board would have to be made on merit.
	This amendment is not only in line with the recommendation of the Joint Select Committee, but a number of other bodies have said how strongly they support such an amendment. Of course it follows on from our discussions about the independence of the legal profession. The Bar Council has stated that it believes that this amendment would enshrine the Nolan processes without explicitly referring to them by name, and would ensure that we get the best possible people. In our Joint Committee we recommended that Nolan itself should be in the Bill. We recommended that recruitment by Nolan processes should be included explicitly on the face of the draft Bill. But I think we would recognise that this amendment in effect does that a little more discreetly, because from time to time these principles may well be changed, improved or further amended, so by putting "Nolan" in the Bill we may be unnecessarily restrictive. The Select Committee's belief that adherence to the Nolan principles should underpin all government appointments is strongly held. For the actuality and the appearance of independence, it is important to maintain that there should be a statutory requirement in the Bill to ensure that those principles are followed.
	In effect, the amendment would underpin the independent nature of the members of the board. It is a provision that at all times a majority of members of the board should be lay persons. That is why the previous amendment was so important in ensuring that the definition of "lay person" would not exclude people who in the past have had some legal training or experience. Whatever one feels about the Legal Services Board, I think we are all unanimous in believing that its members have to be the best possible people. That is why we need to ensure that the right processes are followed.
	Comments are always made—indeed, there has been a recent report by a think tank—that some appointments are political or include members of a particular political party. We all want to rise above that in setting up the Legal Services Board, which is why I have much pleasure in moving an amendment that I believe will secure that aim. I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: They are not departing from it, not because of this piece of legislation but because of custom and practice, convention, and the role of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. I am not disagreeing with the principle of what the noble Lord is trying to do, but I think his amendment takes us to a slightly different place and appointments would already be covered by those principles via other pieces of legislation and conventions.

Lord Kingsland: One of the recommendations of the Joint Committee was that the draft Bill should ensure that, consistent with the Government's policy, lead responsibility should rest with the approved regulators; and that the Legal Services Board should act in partnership with the approved regulators, seeking to resolve differences by agreement wherever possible. In their response to the Joint Committee, the Government said:
	"The Government agrees that the intention of the Legal Services Board should be to work in partnership with the authorised regulators, leaving them with the responsibilityfor day to day regulation. The Legal Services Board should exercise its powers only where approved regulators are clearly failing".
	The wording of the amendment flows from that initial view of the Joint Committee, subsequently endorsed by the Government in their response.
	Behind the amendment is the fact that the Bill appears to say nothing about the way in which the Legal Services Board should approach its task. But from what the Government have been saying about the Bill as we have moved towards the parliamentary stage, it seems clear—to me, at any rate—that the existing professional bodies should act as the frontline regulators and the Legal Services Board should act in a supervisory role, intervening only if it believes that a frontline regulator is failing in some way or another to fulfil its task. The amendment seeks to reflect that in the Bill.
	In the absence of this amendment, or one like it, in our view the Bill will fail to reflect the balance that the Government say they want to achieve betweenthe frontline regulator doing the hands-on work and the Legal Services Board acting in an overseeing role, intervening only when the frontline regulator fails to fulfil its task. I readily accept that the noble Baroness may feel that an amendment differently worded would better reflect the balance of power between the Legal Services Board and the frontline regulators. I should be perfectly happy to consider—indeed, I would probably accept—any such amendment. I am extremely anxious to hear from the noble Baroness, first, whether she agrees with my interpretation of the relationship between the two and, secondly, whether she is prepared to endorse what the Government said in their response to the Joint Committee or some other form of words which would equally reflect the Government's response. I beg to move.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: I strongly agree with both my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. We spent some time in the Joint Select Committee talking about the phrase just used by the noble Lord: "light touch". We heard that phrase on many occasions. I recall with a fond memory that, when my noble friend and I were in harness together on the Financial Services and Markets Bill, we heard constant reiteration of the words "light touch". Indeed, that has been the principle behind the way in which the Financial Services Authority and its leaders have sought to conduct regulation.
	It is very interesting to hear those who are subjected to statutory regulation by the FSA talk about light touch in theory but heavy bureaucracy in practice. Often the engine room will listen to its leadership but will resort to what is called the "box-ticking phenomenon", in which one suddenly finds oneself enmeshed in a bureaucratic nightmare of regulation. I am sure that the Minister will say that that is far from the intention in setting up the Legal Services Board. Indeed, when the Joint Select Committee made this recommendation, which has given rise to the amendment, it said thatit wanted to accept the Government's policy thatlead responsibility should rest with the approved regulators.
	Against that background, we sought to put forward this idea of partnership. The term "partnership" is readily understood: the regulating bodies should act in harness, and the lead regulator should not interfere in a micro-management sense and certainly should not intervene unless there is clear evidence that the approved regulators are failing. In addition, not only should there be clear evidence that they are failing but their failures should have been brought to their notice and directions should have been issued with which they neglected to comply.
	So we are really talking about finding words that will express "light touch" in simple phraseology, and I cannot think of anything better than "act in partnership", unless the Minister can suggest some other words. Certainly, this is very much in line with government policy and all the words that we have heard about light touch. Here is an opportunity for the noble Baroness to do what we have not paid sufficient tribute to her for doing already—that is, to accept amendments. The Minister set a marvellous example to all her ministerial colleagues in listening to the argument and suddenly deciding, "Yes, I will accept". If one is allowed to refer to the Box and the noble Baroness's advisers, I saw a sign of shocked silence when she accepted the previous set of amendments. I am not saying that they were caught by surprise but they just looked surprised. Please may they look surprised yet again by the noble Baroness accepting this amendment.

Lord Kingsland: The Minister might find a certain irony in the fact that in Amendment No. 31 we were urging her to accept an amendment which contained the expression,
	"so far as is reasonably practicable",
	but in Amendment No. 32 we ask her to remove that expression from Clause 3. As I hope will become clear, our approach is wholly rational in relation to both amendments.
	Amendment No. 32 refers to Clause 3, which concerns the Legal Services Board's duty to promote the regulatory objectives set out in Clause 1(1). Clause 3(2) states:
	"The Board must, so far as is reasonably practicable, act in a way—
	"(a) which is compatible with the regulatory objectives, and
	"(b) which the Board considers most appropriate for the purpose of meeting those objectives".
	Our submission is that if one expunges the expression,
	"so far as is reasonably practicable",
	from Clause 3(2), the Government will still get exactly what they want from the clause. We believe that the expression,
	"so far as is reasonably practicable",
	unnecessarily qualifies Clause 1(1). What is the point of setting out the regulatory objectives in Clause 1(1) if one does not require the board to respect them in Clause 3(2)? If the expression is left in the clause, clearly one removes the obligation, in some circumstances, for the board to act in accordance with the regulatory objectives.
	I believe that Clause 3(2)(b) fulfils exactly what the Government ought to want from the clause. The board ought to respect the regulatory objectives, but equally it ought to have the discretion to determine the most appropriate manner for meeting those objectives. As long as the board has discretion to determine the way in which an objective is met, surely that is sufficient. Surely in those circumstances the board can meets its obligation to meet the objective if it has the flexibility to decide the manner in which the objective is met.
	In short, in our view, the expression,
	"so far as is reasonably practicable",
	not only unnecessarily undermines the objectives set out in Clause 1, but it is otiose because Clause 3(2)(b) meets all the requirements that the Government could possibly want from the clause. I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I should be delighted to do that. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and I had a brief conversation about this earlier and I have received legal advice. He reasonably pointed out how Clause 3(2)(b) is drafted and said that, by removing the phrase, I would not be creating the problem I feared. I was fearful that the amendment would place an obligation on the board and on regulators to act in a way that was compatible with all of the regulatory objectives all of the time. That is obviously contrary to the principles proposed by Sir David Clementi which we discussed in part earlier this evening regarding the ability of regulators to judge for themselves how to balance one objective against another on a case-by-case basis.
	In the Bill there may be tensions between some of the objectives in some circumstances. A case may arise in future where the objective to improve access to justice is more important, as we discussed on the competition issue, than the objective to promote competition. In such a situation it would be difficult for the Legal Services Board to comply fully with both regulatory objectives. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, will agree that in our earlier discussion, when we considered the matter, he thought that Clause 3(2)(b) addressed the issue and that we did not need to look at it again. However, I have now taken advice from lawyers in the department. I shall not read out the advice in detail but will send it to Members of the Committee who have spoken in the debate so that they can look at it properly.
	We do not think that the effect that the noble Lord seeks to achieve will be the one that is achieved. The problem that I have outlined would be created because of the way in which the Bill is drafted. The result would be that the LSB would have to act in a way that is compatible with the regulatory objectives and that the board considers most appropriate for the purpose of meeting those objectives. "So far as is reasonably practicable" qualifies both of those. They require different things that would be differently affected by no longer being qualified by "so far as is reasonably practicable".
	I shall stop there. However, that is the difficulty. The phrase is qualifying both, but in different ways. We shall discuss the point between now and Report to ensure that I have made that as clear as possible. I understand what the noble Lord seeks to do, but we need the provision in the clause in order to prevent the effect that the noble Lord's amendment would accidentally achieve.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: That is the difference. We do not think we have entitled the board to ignore them. We have already said that there will be times when the weighting of different objectivesand considerations is essential. For example, some objectives may not be engaged at all. We will look at this again. We do not believe that there is a problem as the noble Lord maintains but we need to convince him of that. We agree with what he is trying to achieve but we think that it is already there.

Lord Morrow: My Lords, secondary legislation is supposed to be non-controversial, but these regulations could not be more controversial. It cannot be often that a set of regulations is accused of attacking fundamental religious freedoms. Yet, that is what is being said here. The newspapers in Northern Ireland are full of controversy about the regulations. The High Court has granted permission for a judicial review of the regulations, and there is even a public demonstration against them outside Parliament as we speak tonight.
	Noble Lords will know that the Merits Committee drew the special attention of the House to the regulations in its third report on 7 December. The committee made particular reference to the controversy. It pointed out that 290 of the 373 consultation responses that the Government received on the regulations expressed concern about the effect on religious liberty. The committee thinks that the House will be interested in,
	"the manner in which the Department have sought to allay the concerns which have been expressed by consultation respondents".
	The fact is that they have failed to allay those concerns, as I will show.
	Noble Lords may have realised that we do not have the benefit today of a report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. That is not because the committee is unconcerned—quite the contrary. I understand that the committee has asked the Government a series of searching questions about the regulations and has drawn attention to typographical errors. They have even asked whether the regulations are ultra vires under Section 24 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which prohibits Ministers from any action that breaches freedom of religion. I asked the Government to delay today's debate to allow the committee to complete its report, but my request was denied.
	What do the regulations do? The sexual orientation regulations, which came into force on 1 January, cover the provision of goods, facilities and services, education, public authorities and the disposal of property. The regulations outlaw, first, discrimination and, secondly, harassment on the ground of sexual orientation. The scope of the regulations is vast, covering businesses and voluntary organisations. The phrase "goods, facilities and services" is very broad, covering many different activities. The regulations do not cover employment, which is dealt with in other legislation.
	In most circumstances, the new laws will not be problematic. Homosexual people are entitled to be able to buy their groceries and have their bins emptied, just like everyone else—but the regulations go much further. They make it possible for homosexual activists to sue people who disagree with a homosexual lifestyle because of their religious beliefs. Bed and breakfast owners and Christian old people's homes will be sued for not giving a double bed to homosexual civil partners. Wedding photographers will be made to pay compensation for not taking bookings for civil partnership ceremonies. Christians in business could even be sued for sharing their faith with customers. Worst of all, they require religious organisations to choose between obedience to God and obedience to the state.
	The press is reporting that a first breach of the law could incur fines of between £500 and £5,000. Subsequent serious breaches could attract damages of up to £25,000. Regulation 3(3) sets out the new harassment law. The law is breached if someone can show that their dignity has been violated or that someone has created an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for them. At its lowest, "harassment" can constitute an "offensive environment" for a homosexual. Noble Lords should note that Regulation 3(4) makes it clear that the court must have particular regard to the perception of the complainant. Furthermore, under Regulation 52, the burden of proof is reversed so that the person accused of harassment will have to prove their innocence.
	The Government's Equality Bill proposed the creation of a harassment law in almost exactly the same terms as that, but on the ground of religion. In November 2005, this House voted to remove it from the Bill. It was considered too broad, too controversial and a threat to freedom of speech. The Government responded by asking the discrimination law review to look at it. That review has not yet reported. No solution has yet been put forward by the many experts involved in that review. Yet the Northern Ireland Office seems to think that it has the wisdom of Solomon and has slipped in the harassment provisions. It has done so despite indicating in its consultation paper that it was not minded to do so. I should say that the consultation itself was defective in that it did not give enough time for members of the public to respond and ignored most of the responses.
	Furthermore, the Government claim that concerns about religious liberty are met by Regulation 16. It provides certain exemptions for religious organisations from a discrimination law. I underline this: what it does not do is protect religious organisations from the harassment law. That has major implications for religious liberty and freedom of speech. For example, if church membership were denied to a homosexual and the minister explained in orthodox, theological terms the religious belief that justified the denial, it would be open to the person to bring a claim for harassment. He could complain that the explanation had the effect of,
	"violating ... dignity; or creating an intimidating ... humiliating or offensive environment".
	Regulation 16(4)(a) states:
	"Nothing in these Regulations shall make it unlawful for a minister to restrict participation in activities carried on in the performance of his functions".
	That exemption covers the refusal by the minister. It does not cover any subsequent explanations. If he quotes from the Bible, he could be in trouble. What could be more fundamental than the right to decide who is a member of your church? Yet that is jeopardised by the regulations.
	As I mentioned, the regulations are subject to judicial review by several Christian groups. The Christian Institute and six denominations have successfully applied for permission for a judicial review that is to be heard in early March. They are represented by James Dingemans QC who argues that the regulations interfere with the manifestation of religious belief and bring about a situation where one set of rights trumps another.
	One might have hoped for some humility from Government in the face of these allegations, some willingness to reconsider. Instead, Ministers have been engaged in knocking down straw men. I have here a letter dated 13 December from Mr David Hanson, the Minister of State for Northern Ireland which says that bed and breakfast places can still refuse to give a double bed to a homosexual couple so long as they also refuse double beds to unmarried heterosexual couples, but what about the issue of civil partnerships? The consultation paper repeatedly declared the Government's intention to ensure that civil partners receive the same treatment as married couples. So, if a Christian bed and breakfast establishment refused a double room to a homosexual couple living in a civil partnership, they could be sued and so in effect closed down purely because of their religious beliefs.
	The Minister also says that the harassment provisions will not stop a Christian bookshop promoting marriage. That is very good. But what he does not say is what happens when members of staff in a Christian bookshop share the Gospel with a homosexual customer. If they urge the customer to repent and turn to Christ—as in Northern Ireland they might often do—they could easily find themselves on the wrong end of a legal action for harassment. The bookshop would not want to discriminate in any way—it would happily sell the person, sell anyone, a book—but it can still be sued for harassment.
	Education will also be affected. The Minister says that the regulations apply only to access to benefits and not the curriculum. I believe that he is mistaken. There is absolutely nothing in the wording that excludes the curriculum from the scope of litigation.
	In Northern Ireland, the Fair Employment and Treatment Order 1998 outlaws discrimination on the ground of religion in the provision of goods and services. It provides broad exceptions for schools which could cover the curriculum. This means that it will not be possible to litigate using these laws over any religious content in the school curriculum. However, the sexual orientation regulations do not exempt the curriculum. That creates an imbalance in legal rights. Discrimination law could be used to promote homosexuality but not to object to it. A pupil who identifies as homosexual can sue a teacher who says in an RE lesson that sex outside of marriage is wrong, but a religious pupil cannot sue if homosexuality is promoted in an English lesson.
	There is another glaring hole in the exceptions for religious groups. Regulation 16(8) states that the exception does not apply where an organisation contracts with the state to provide a particular service. This means that religious bodies providing a service on behalf of the state must fully comply with the new laws. So a Christian old people's home receiving state funding for some places which refused a double room to two civil partners would be unlawfully discriminating. The home is faced with a choice: defend legal actions or turn down state funding. Either way, the costs would mean that the home will close.
	In a recent letter to The Times dated 30 November 2006, Meg Munn MP claims that the sexual orientation regulations are necessary as,
	"lesbian or bisexual people are denied access to essential healthcare".
	If that indeed were the case, this sort of discrimination could be dealt with easily under current guidance by the General Medical Council without the need to have SORs implemented. Those who work in the NHS inform me that they are not aware of any incidents of lesbians or bisexuals being denied access to essential healthcare. Recently, the Equality Unit, DTI, was contacted but was unable to provide substantial evidence regarding this. There appears to be only very limited anecdotal evidence. I contend that the Government have failed to provide robust evidence to support the claim that homosexual individuals are denied access to essential healthcare. As that claim seems to be one of the main bases for introducing SORs, the burden of responsibility rests with the Minister to produce robust and convincing evidence that homosexual individuals are denied access to essential healthcare. It is most important that the Government ensure that the proposed SORs will not be abused by malicious claims as has happened in other countries. I give the example of Canada.
	I am firmly convinced that the freedom tomanifest one's religion is seriously undermined. The regulations threaten to override the consciences and free speech of Christians and others who object to homosexual practice. This contravenes Articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the Government have achieved one thing: they have united Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter in opposition to these SORs. I am not aware of any—I underline the word "any"—church denomination, large or small, in Northern Ireland that supports the regulations. As a matter of fact, I confidently stand here tonight and tell noble Lords that there is none. Not a single denomination, small or large, in Northern Ireland supports these regulations. I beg to move.
	Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations, laid before the House on 24 November, be annulled. 3rd Report from the Merits Committee.—(Lord Morrow.)

Lord Smith of Finsbury: My Lords, I rise to support these regulations. I have to confess that I am somewhat puzzled by the arguments that have been advanced by the noble Lord and by many of the campaigners outside this House. It seems to me in my simplistic way that what they are arguing for is quite simply the right to discriminate and the right to harass. And those arguments are being made in name of Christianity? I find that very difficult to understand.
	Much of the material that has been put before us in relation to these regulations speaks of a balance of rights. Yes, of course, the whole business of politics and government and the discussions in this House are about balancing rights. I believe very strongly that people have a right to believe that homosexuality is in some way wrong. I believe very strongly that people have a right to hold views that may be bigoted and discriminatory. What I do not believe is that they have the right to put those beliefs into action in a way that affects adversely the life and livelihood of other human beings. These regulations very simply seek to prevent that.
	This is not just about freedom of conscience. It is about freedom of action and where the limits to that freedom of action have to rest in order to ensure that other people in our society can be properly protected. These regulations are very simply putting non-discrimination into practice. If in much of the material that has been written about these matters we had simply substituted the word "black" for the word "homosexual", I wonder whether we would be giving house room to some of these arguments.
	I speak as someone who happens to be a gay man. I also happen to be a Christian. My Christianity is about being inclusive, not about being exclusive. It is about being accepting of others. It is about celebrating the differences between all the wonderful people that God created in this crazy world of ours.
	There is an old story about a black man in the deep south of the United States who climbs up the steps of a church in order to go in and worship. He climbs up the steps on a very hot, sunny, summer afternoon. He gets to the door of the church and the burly man at the doors says, "I'm sorry. You can't come in here. It's not for the likes of you". Very sorrowfully, the black man turns round and walks back down the steps. Halfway down, God speaks to him and says, "Why are you so sad?". He says, "Well, Lord, I wanted to go into the church to worship you, and they won't let me in". "It's all right", says God, "I've been trying to get in there for years, and they won't let me in either". It seems to me that perhaps some of those who are arguing against these regulations should reflect just a little on that story and on the lessons from it.

Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, we all certainly need to reflect quite a lot on our attitudes and conduct. As I see it, these regulations for Northern Ireland, dealing, as they do, with sexual orientation, differ considerably from any of the legislation outlawing discrimination on other grounds. Let me take a moment to explain why.
	The sexual orientation regulations are not confined in their effect to the tendency of a person—orientation means, I think, tendency. These regulations are not about outlawing a particular tendency. They do more than that. They state that people who give services, supply goods or provide facilities must not discriminate on the ground of sexual orientation. The regulations imply that if those people interact with people of that orientation, they must also be prepared to allow them, if appropriate, to use the facilities that they provide for the purpose of homosexual practice. That is quite different from the other types of discrimination. It is the practice of homosexual acts that some Christians—but not the noble Lord who has just spoken—and considerable numbers of people of other major religions believe is wrong and sinful, and they do not think that they can conscientiously do anything to promote or further it.
	I shall take one illustration, that of a person who provides bed and breakfast for people in his house. In that situation, if he receives a same-sex couple in a double room in his house, he is liable to be convinced of the fact that he is allowing a sinful practice of which he disapproves. That is the difference between this type of regulation and the discrimination regulations with which we are familiar and which most, if notall, Christians and other religious people support wholeheartedly. These regulations are different in that respect. It is interesting to notice that the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee considered that there were difficult issues in these regulations that required the consideration of the House. I believe that that was because these regulations have a feature different from the regulations of former times with which we are accustomed.

Lord Eames: My Lords, perhaps I may presume to introduce one other aspect to this debate that is of great importance to the people of Northern Ireland. Shortly before my retirement on 31 December as Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland, I found that it was my duty to join episcopal colleagues in drawing the attention of the general public to the tremendous concern that we as bishops felt about the manner in which the process of legislating in this place and in the other place for Northern Ireland was being followed. We had to make our concerns public for the simple reason that we believed that some of the process that was being adopted by Her Majesty's Government in relation to Northern Ireland was in every sense a denial of rights. This debate, while it has so far centred on doctrine and personal religious beliefs, is an example of what can happen when the Government follow a certain process through Orders in Council and regulations, as is the case this evening.
	What I am speaking of has nothing to with party politics or denominations. It is something that should be of genuine concern to this House, particularly to those who do not come from Northern Ireland, but who in England and Wales will shortly, so we are informed, have to engage in a debate of this nature.
	Over a wide range of subjects, not least this present one, current procedures place some of us in an impossible situation, where we agree with large sections of legislation—where we agree with the spirit of it and recognise that it has to do with human dignity and equality—but cannot do otherwise than challenge other parts of it. The process to which I am referring denies us the opportunity to do that. To support such proposals in total denies our rights to question or amend.
	I shall illustrate this dilemma, which I and others feel tonight, with reference to some current legislation that has, or will, come before this House. The main churches in Northern Ireland—the Church of Ireland and the Roman Catholic, Presbyterian and Methodist churches—received the consultation documentation on 29 July and a response was demanded by25 September. Noble Lords will recognise that this was a major holiday period, when anything akin to a full response was impossible. If the views of the main churches were of interest to the Government and were genuinely sought on such an important and sensitive issue as this, which has to do with dignity, equality and justice, how were we expected to respond with integrity? Consequently, we find ourselves this evening supporting much, but unable to press our concerns on parts that are unclear and a source of deep anxiety to many Christians in Northern Ireland.
	Of equal importance to this concern on the consultative process on Orders in Council are the following examples. A huge document was received for consultation by the churches on charities review. Views were invited, we were told, on 7 July and expected by 13 October. On the adoption law, views were invited on 4 July and a response demanded by1 September. A mammoth amount of paperwork on education was received on 28 November for a response by 19 January. In addition, at any one time, my colleagues and my staff were dealing with several such requests at the one time. How can those of us wishing to support fair and detailed analysis of important legislation, but who are confronted by such restricted timescales, convince people of the merits of good government?
	As noble Lords know, unlike most legislation, neither Orders in Council nor regulations can be amended and they are denied full parliamentary scrutiny as I understand it. Surely where such situations arise there is an additional legal and moral burden on the Government to be seen to provide reasonable additional consultation, in the name of good government. In Northern Ireland, where the onus is placed on this House and the other place in the absence of a local Assembly, surely that moral responsibility is even more important. I believe that the Government should have instructed civil servants along those lines.
	It is also obvious that broadly similar legislation applying separately to Northern Ireland and to the rest of the United Kingdom are accorded different response times in different parts of the kingdom, to the disadvantage of the people of Northern Ireland. It prompts me to ask: what if the regulations proposed for England and Wales ultimately differ in any manner from those proposed for Northern Ireland? What will be the result for the United Kingdom as a whole? That is a very serious possibility, which I ask this House to take into consideration.
	The churches play a vital role in charities, adoption procedures, education and now equality issues. I believe that we do not have to defend the role that we have played or the voice that we have given to the population on these issues. These issues have an impact on the life of the voluntary sector and the wider community, and much of the legislation on those other areas is to be welcomed; equally, however, much of it is controversial and deserves much closer scrutiny than is possible under our present procedures.
	It gives me, after my years of public service, no pleasure to make those points. But I appeal to the Government to recognise the dilemmas that the current procedure presents to many of us, including myself. Should it be the case—I say, should it be the case—that fast-tracking controversial legislation is simply a lever to force the restoration of devolved government for Northern Ireland, I would have very serious concerns. Be that as it may, a serious consequence of the current methods of making law for Northern Ireland is to leave open the way for such perceptions to prosper. In my years of experience, if I have learnt anything, it is that—I think that those noble Lords who have served in the Province would agree with me—perceptions can become realities overnight. In the interests of good government, that is surely highly undesirable.
	This debate illustrates the consequences of that lack of scrutiny. It poses very serious issues, irrespective of the detail of the subject matter covered by the regulations. I suggest that the way in which this is being done, in any democracy such as ours, poses very serious issues, and I for one felt bound to express those concerns to the House.

Lord Moran: We must thank my noble friend Lord Morrow for giving us an opportunity to pass judgment on these highly controversial regulations, which came into force in Northern Ireland nine days ago without any parliamentary debate or vote. They have been rushed through, after the briefest possible consultation during the summer holidays—as the noble and most reverend Lord, Lord Eames, made clear in his deeply impressive speech—and have been introduced under direct rule powers so that Northern Ireland's democratically elected representatives have had no opportunity to consider them. Had they done so, I should not have been surprised if Sinn Fein and the DUP had joined forces to oppose them.
	The regulations include a widely drawn harassment law, which my noble friend Lord Morrow has already described. He explained its implications, which would have been very serious. Those responsible for drawing it up might have remembered that a similar harassment law covering religion was rejected in a decisive vote by this House on the Third Reading of the Equality Bill last November on an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. Moreover there is, as I understand it, already a firm criminal law which protects everyone—the Protection from Harassment (Northern Ireland) Order 1997.
	It is clear that the new regulations, while seeking quite reasonably to meet the concerns of lesbians, gay men and bisexuals, may have damaging effects on Christians and Christian churches of all denominations, Christian schools, Christian adoption agencies, Christian printers and Christian conference centres. They may be asked to provide services that involve them in condoning or promoting a lifestyle that conflicts with their fundamental beliefs about marriage and family life. It has been pointed out that the regulations may be used to discriminate against those who deeply believe that homosexual activity is morally wrong.
	It is not surprising that eminent churchmen—both Catholics and Anglicans, including leaders of black churches—have spoken out strongly against the regulations. The Catholic Archbishop of Birmingham has said:
	"Those who are elected to fashion our laws are not elected to be our moral tutors. They have no mandate or competence to do so."
	Jews and Muslims seem to be equally concerned.
	The regulations will certainly have an adverse effect on freedom of speech. A Christian teacher would, it appears, risk prosecution if he or she were to teach the importance of marriage and add that sexual partnerships outside marriage should be avoided.
	Noble Lords will be aware that in addition to the judicial review that has now been decided, some Christian lawyers have made a plea to the Queen, and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has also put a number of questions to the Government and will be meeting to discuss the regulations on 24 January.
	I have for some time thought that a substantial proportion of the laws that we in this House are asked to pass result from pressure from the homosexual lobby, while other minorities are ignored. For example, nine years ago, the Government commissioned a study of salmon and freshwater fisheries. An excellent report resulted that was welcomed by everyone, including the Government. The recommendations for actions by fishery organisations were quickly followed up. The Government promised to introduce primary legislation to deal with the rest when parliamentary time permitted. That was six years ago and nothing has happened, but year after year the Government reaffirmed their commitment to legislate. A rather sad letter that Defra sent to all the organisations concerned just a year ago states:
	"Although we have bid for a Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Bill in most years since the review ... we have never been successful in getting a slot for it. For the current session, it made the reserve list (albeit at No. 47) but was eventually dropped because of pressure of other government business".
	A year later, there is still no sign of the Bill. Now, too, we see that the marine Bill—something of the greatest importance to this country—did not as expected make it into the Queen's Speech. Perhaps it, too, will suffer prolonged delay.
	Three and a half million anglers and uncounted environmentalists are given short shrift by this Government, but things are very different when the Government deal with the gay lobby. I asked the Library how many major statutes impacting on gay rights have passed since 1997. It gave me a list of eight. Lesbians, gay men and bisexuals have indeed been handsomely treated at the cost of other interests. There have been so many of these Bills that the Government seem now to have decided to take major steps to increase gay rights by avoiding primary legislation and using regulations like those now before us as a quicker and less difficult alternative.
	Not only do Ministers such as Mr Hain push on this agenda; even civil servants are drawn into the campaign. A recent report says that proposals by officials in the Home Office—where else?—recommends that schools that lack enthusiasm from rooting out "homophobic" prejudice should be reported to the police, that there should be "hate crime co-ordinators" and that gay lobby groups should set up third-party reporting centres, seemingly a resurrection of the "Cooper's snoopers" we heard of during the war.
	One is bound to ask oneself why this Government are apparently so obsessed with extending the rights and privileges of gays. People may begin to wonder if they are planning to make homosexuality compulsory. This never-ending stream of measures for a particular lobby is surely likely to produce a backlash and make life for gays worse rather than better.
	I have no doubt that we should support the Prayer so that the Northern Ireland regulations can be suspended and, one hopes, amended drastically or perhaps tidied away and best forgotten, while similar action is taken on the regulations proposed for Great Britain next April.

Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I rise briefly to support what the noble and most reverend Lord, Lord Eames, said. This is not about attitudes; this is about the process, and the process we are going through tonight is even more unique than normal. What is the effect of an order in Northern Ireland, followed by a Bill for the remainder of the United Kingdom? Normally orders in Northern Ireland are either unique to Northern Ireland or they follow legislation in the remainder of the United Kingdom. This process is unique in a different way, in supporting an order that came in on 1 January, because the order is already in place, written on the Government's instructions, without amendment and without consultation being carried out. We have in place an order that will be followed by a Bill—which may be introduced in another place first—that is extremely unlikely not to be amended on its way through. That is what is wrong as far as Northern Ireland is concerned. We will have in place an order that is substantially different from that in the remainder of the United Kingdom. There is no question about it. If this and another place do their job there is bound to be some amendment, purely to its written English if nothing else.
	We have heard about guest houses. I am, as the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, put it, the "unfortunate proprietor" of a guest house in Northern Ireland—though I do not think that I am unfortunate. I have had a few noble Lords to stay and I quite enjoyed it; whether they did is another matter. Please note thatI do not have children and we are not—and here I shall be accused of discrimination—a very children-friendly place because we do not have a nursery or children's toys. The point is this: a guest house is not a hotel; nor is it the local ironmonger's or a travel agency. It is a place to which people go—very often as couples—to get away for a happy weekend together.
	More than anything, a guest house is unique because it involves the guests in the family. They are not in room 214 where they can press a button—although if they did so at Colebrook they would not get anything. They are among the family. If there are children, they can talk to the children. They may even have children as guests themselves and will involve themselves with those children. It may not be the religious belief of people who own guest houses, but purely their determination, that their children may grow up to be able to make a decision on whether they are influenced by activities of which their parents do not necessarily approve. This is absolutely vital. I give way.

The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham: My Lords, I would like to pick up on some of the scenes that I have heard this evening in the Chamber, and particularly I refer to the earlier scenes enunciated by the noble and most reverend Lord, Lord Eames. The regulations do not apply to England. The Church of England has already submitted its views on the important points that need to be safeguarded in the parallel regulations for Great Britain. We very much welcome the time and the trouble that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is taking to consider all the representations that she has received.
	The regulations might have been a great deal more satisfactory if Ministers and officials in Northern Ireland had also taken more time to engage in detail with the churches and others there about them. Asa result, we find ourselves having to consider regulations that, while in some respects perfectly sensible, are in other respects unclear and cause a deep anxiety—and surely that anxiety is patently obvious to anyone who is listening—to Christians and other people of faith.
	For example, when Parliament has no opportunity to make amendments, it frankly beggars belief that provisions on harassment were inserted at the last minute and without warning. It is not enough to say that harassment is a bad thing, which manifestly it is. The question is how to avoid making any new provisions so subjective that they act as a curb on the legitimate expression of opinion to which others take offence. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister why it has been thought necessary to proceed with such haste in one part of the United Kingdom when the Government's sensible decision for elsewhere has been to study the matter at greater length as part of the discrimination law review.
	The regulations clearly demonstrate the need to strike a fair balance between the rights of homosexual people to be treated with dignity and respect and the rights of Christians and other people of faith to manifest their religious beliefs, including in relation to sexual conduct. In the view of a number of us on these Benches, these hastily prepared regulations fail to do that. Instead, they run the risk of facing significant numbers of people, as we have heard earlier in the debate, with the choice between complying with the law or with their religiously informed conscience. Whether that is the intention of the Secretary of State, or simply the unintended consequence of regulations produced with inadequate consultation, is unclear. But it causes many of us great concern.
	The Government have, of course, sought to be helpful by including a set of special provisions for churches and other religious organisations in Regulation 16. Most Christian denominations and other faiths are not able in good conscience to make their places of worship available to those who wish, for example, to have their same-sex relationships or partnerships blessed and celebrated. Nor are they willing to make their church halls available to organisations that seek to promote the acceptance of homosexual relationships as equivalent to heterosexual ones. Nor can many Christians accept that children in church schools should be taught that same-sex relationships are just as valid as heterosexual relationships based on marriage.
	The intention behind Regulation 16 is therefore helpful, but it appears to permit restrictions only if imposed,
	"in respect of a person on the ground of his sexual orientation".
	All the mainstream Christian churches are clear that they have no wish to impose restrictions on the ground of sexual orientation as opposed to conduct. That being so, it is far from clear that the varied restrictions that religious organisations might wish to impose—namely, on the basis of homosexual conduct—would in fact be protected. It would also be helpful to have the Minister's confirmation that they are intended to be.
	Also of concern, in terms of exceptions, is what is expressly left out. Regulation 11 imposes a very wide general duty on educational establishments, and yet there is no special provision for faith schools. No one would seek to argue for an exemption in relation, for example, to admissions policies, but what about the teaching in relation to marriage? Whether in the classroom or in the context of collective worship, is a Roman Catholic school that teaches children the traditional Catholic view to be at risk of legal challenge? If that is not the Government's intention, the regulation should have made that position clearer. The potential for bringing such claims risks putting schools in an unnecessarily difficult position. There is absolutely no case for this when in practice the whole area of sex and relationship education is being handled sensitively in faith schools within the present, very carefully balanced statutory framework. In the regulations for Great Britain, it is important that this matter is put beyond doubt. In the mean time, I can only express very real concern that the regulations for Northern Ireland do not deal with this matter satisfactorily.
	In conclusion, there is much in these regulations that is uncontentious and a very proper protection against injustice, but overall they fail to strike that careful balance, which Parliament has been historically good at striking, that is needed particularly in areas where conflicting rights are engaged. They have all the hallmarks of haste and insufficient engagement, both at policy level and on detailed drafting with the churches. Whatever the outcome of tonight's debate, it is crucial that the serious issues raised by Christian and other religious leaders are adequately dealt with before the regulations for the rest of the United Kingdom are finalised.

Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, it is extremely rare to see so many of your Lordships in the Chamber when we are debating matters to do with Northern Ireland. I think perhaps tonight I understand why. It is very good to see the interest being taken tonight. I will be very brief.
	I have had from Stonewall two examples which may help your Lordships make up your minds about which way you will vote. One gay couple from Northern Ireland wrote to Stonewall recently saying why they were turned away late at night from a country hotel which they had booked months before in order to attend a sister's wedding. They found the experience utterly humiliating. Stonewall also says that it heard from a woman who went to see her GP, having suffered from work-related stress. When the woman mentioned her lesbian partner in conversation, she was told that she was engaging in unnatural, inhuman practices and that it was none too surprising that she would be suffering from mental distress as a consequence. The unnatural, inhuman practices were being perpetrated by the GP. It deeply saddens me to have to say that.It is essential that these regulations are accepted y Parliament and that Northern Ireland shouldlead the way towards a tolerant, caring and humane society.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, it seems extraordinary to me that we are now debating secondary legislation that is so flawed that the High Court has granted permission for a judicial review on the question of whether this secondary legislation breaches the Human Rights Act. Surely it would have been better to await the outcome of that review, fixed for 1 and 2 March, instead of charging blindly on.
	I am also surprised that we have been required to debate these regulations today before the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has been able to produce its report. Given that it clearly has questions about the regulations, surely it would have been better if we had waited a couple of weeks for that report.
	The Merits Committee has expressed a certain amount of doubt, and the Joint Committee could have shed further light on the comments of the Merits Committee, but we have been deprived of that lightby the Government's indecent haste to get thisdebate out of the way. One of the members of that committee, Mr David Simpson MP, has said publicly:
	"The Government's timetabling makes a mockery of the parliamentary process. How are MPs supposed to make an informed decision about Sexual Orientation Regulations before the committee has had a chance to report? We have serious questions about how the regulations could interfere with religious liberty under the Human Rights Act. Peter Hain is rushing these regulations onto the statute book and seems prepared to sideline the parliamentary process in order to do so".
	It is quite clear that throughout this whole process the Government have been prepared to ride roughshod over everybody. As the noble and most reverend Lord, Lord Eames, and others have noted, the consultation timetable was quite unacceptable—a period of eight weeks which included the entire month of August, the main holiday season in Northern Ireland, therefore in effect four weeks. The Government's own guidelines state that public consultation should be held over a standard minimum period of 12 weeks—not four weeks. In the rest of the United Kingdom, the consultation lasted 12 weeks, from 13 March to 5 June 2006. Why was Northern Ireland's consultation in effect one third of that?
	The regulations were made on 8 November 2006, just six weeks and two days after the public consultation closed on 25 September. Do the Government really expect us to believe that sixweeks and two days is long enough to consider the 373 responses and to address the complex issues raised?
	In the rest of the United Kingdom, the making of the regulations has been postponed while issues raised during the public consultation are being addressed. The Government have postponed the implementation of the regulations on the mainland until April 2007. Their consultation ended three and a half months before that of Northern Ireland.
	Let us presume that the regulations will be made around mid-February. That constitutes 250 days between the end of the consultation and the making of the regulations, compared with 44 days in Northern Ireland. How does that stack up? It is an insult to Northern Ireland that the time between the end of the consultation and the making of the regulations is around one-fifth of that in the rest of the United Kingdom.
	The right honourable Ruth Kelly was emphatic that following the Great Britain consultation and the concerns raised, it was important to,
	"make sure that there is effective protection from discrimination while ensuring that people have the right to religious freedom".
	Were the issues raised by the Great Britain regulations much more complex than those raised in Northern Ireland? Or is this yet another case of "Northern Ireland—so what"?

Lord Alli: My Lords, the legislation that we discuss changes but the arguments remain the same.
	I thank my noble friend Lady Blood for her very powerful speech. Some may have thought that the whole of Northern Ireland would oppose these laws, and my noble friend made it very clear that that was not the case.
	I would not normally speak on regulations affecting Northern Ireland, but as one of the few gay Peers in your Lordships' House, I know only too well how essential these regulations are. I argued passionately for them last year, and I pay particular tribute to the Government for ensuring that they have come forward. The widespread incidence of unfair treatment on the grounds of sexual orientation led to this House supporting that amendment and voting to outlaw this kind of discrimination. I warned then that there would come a time when extending these provisions from religious groups which have these protections to lesbian and gay men would find opposition from those same religious groupswhich argued so successfully for the original legislation.
	Look outside this building tonight, listen to the small but vocal crowd, and imagine how it feels to walk through that crowd and see so much prejudice directed towards you simply because you are gay, simply because you are yourself, simply because you exist. It is rank hypocrisy to object to this order, having argued for the very same protection for religious groups only a few months ago.
	I was prompted to speak tonight by a number of letters I have received from gay men and women living in Northern Ireland, urging this House to support the regulations. If your Lordships will permit me, I shall read a tiny extract from one of those letters:
	"What do the goods and services protections mean to me? Quite simply, they mean that as a citizen of Northern Ireland who happens to be gay, I will be afforded the same rights and civil liberties that others already enjoy ... I will be protected ... from people who wish to discriminate against me because I am gay. These regulations mean that I need no longer fear being denied hospital treatment. No longer will my partner and I be refused a double room together, causing the two of us such degrading embarrassment".
	This is about real people and real people's lives and their right not to be discriminated against. It is about the politics of prejudice. Rather too often, that is forgotten in the sometimes fanciful claims made about the impact of these new laws. They are fair and balanced, and they give gay people in Northern Ireland the same level of protection that we all want for ourselves. I urge the noble Lord not to press his Motion to annul this important legislation, which will improve people's lives. If he does not listen to that plea, I ask this House to do what it has done on many other occasions, of which I am incredibly proud: to vote against it, reject his call and demonstrate overwhelmingly to the people of Northern Ireland and beyond that this House believes in fairness, justice and equal rights for all.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is not as simple as that, as the noble Lord knows. The Government said it was an improper vehicle by which to introduce harassment because harassment is a perception by one person of another. That is why I think it is wrong for it to be done in this case.
	It is surprising, as the noble Lord, Lord Eames, and others have said, that the consultation period lasted only eight weeks, even though it should have been 12 weeks. It has been pointed out that that was far too short a time, particularly as it was during the summer months. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments is still considering these regulations, despite the fact that they came into operation on 1 January. It would have been more courteous and more correct to have waited for the views of the Joint Committee, otherwise what is the point of having a Joint Committee?
	Is not the real reason for all this that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was determined to get these regulations in place in Northern Ireland before Stormont takes over power, before 24 March? One wonders why the Secretary of State did not let Stormont make up its own mind on these delicate matters which relate to the people of Northern Ireland. As the unionists have more seats, he knew that, left to Stormont, the regulations would not have been introduced. One might then say, "Let Stormont remove the regulations, if that is what it wants to do, as soon as it takes power". But that could not happen because—I am not familiar with all the niceties of Northern Ireland politics—Sinn Fein and the SDLP have a lock over these matters, and they would never agree to the regulations being removed.
	So, the Secretary of State is forcing these regulations on the people of Northern Ireland against their wishes, against the wishes of those who represent them and while the Secretary of State is still in a position to do so. Having done that, what will the Government do? They will say that now the regulations are in operation in Northern Ireland, we can have the same regulations for England and Wales. It is important that these regulations should not criminalise the practice of a person's faith, but they will. They tread over religious sensitivities and they create fear. The way in which they have been introduced is highly undesirable. For those reasons I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, will continue with his Prayer.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, we on these Benches warmly welcome these regulations. We entirely support the Government's position. We very much hope that if this Prayer against the regulations is moved to a vote, it will be roundly defeated. I shall try briefly not to repeat what others have said, but to add new points.
	I found the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Finsbury, deeply impressive. He has made it unnecessary for me to say much of what I would otherwise have said. I am a former special adviser to the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights in Northern Ireland, and I have great affection for its people—even though, particularly when talking about matters of sex, some of them sometimes nearly drive me demented. That is almost as bad as talking about religion.
	It has not been said tonight that Northern Ireland has been a pacesetter for anti-discrimination legislation, often leading the way with the rest of the United Kingdom following. I am old enough to remember the Van Straubenzee report, which led to the fair employment legislation that was much stronger than what I was able to accomplish at the Home Office in the mid-1970s. Under the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, that was strengthened greatly in 1989; we had nothing comparable to it. Remarkably, in Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, there is a provision compelling the promotion of equality of opportunity between people of different sexual orientation, among other things. We do not have that, of course. There is already a human rights commission in Northern Ireland, anda single equality commission. Work has progressedon a single equality Bill from a fairly early stage. It is not at all unusual for Northern Ireland to be first with excellent civil rights legislation on discrimination.
	These regulations must be read in context. No noble Lord has yet done so. First, there is the international context, now part of our system through the Human Rights Act 1998. These regulations, as the Human Rights Act commands, must be read and given effect, if possible, in a way compatible with fundamental human rights and freedoms. Those fundamental rights include freedom of religion, conscience, speech, association and non-discrimination. Therefore, when courts have to interpret and apply regulations, they must make quite sure that they do not disproportionately or excessively encroach upon those fundamental freedoms. Some points made by noble Lords on free speech or freedom of religion are simply points about the importance of those rights, against which these regulations, like all regulations, must, if possible, be read.
	Although freedom of religion is a vital freedom, as are freedom of conscience and freedom of speech, so is equal treatment without discrimination. The European Convention on Human Rights provides that everyone is entitled to the enjoyment of the rights in that convention without discrimination, covering, for example, sexual orientation. It applies, for example, to education. There must be no discrimination based on sexual orientation in education, otherwise Article 2 of the first protocol of the convention, read with Article 14, would be breached.
	That is relevant because if the Government did not introduce these regulations in Northern Ireland and comparable regulations in the rest of the United Kingdom and there were then a victim of, say, sexual orientation discrimination in access to education, the UK would be in breach of the European convention. In particular, it would be in breach of Article 13, which says that there must be an effective national remedy. I hope the Minister will confirm that the United Kingdom, in introducing these regulations, is among other things giving effect to our international obligations. The same will apply when other regulations—not a primary Bill—are later introduced in the rest of the United Kingdom.
	That is not all. The Northern Ireland Act, as noble Lords from Northern Ireland will know better than I do, does not devolve responsibility for compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights. That matter was specifically reserved to central government. Therefore, even the great Stormont, when it is able to function again, does not have the power to act in a way that over-rides or disregards human rights. The Secretary of State may, if necessary, deal with the matter. If Stormont were to repeal these regulations I am not at all sure whether that would not of itself involve a breach of the human rights legislation and the European convention.
	We are not dealing in a vacuum so far as concerns earlier legislation. The Republic of Ireland enacted similar legislation as long ago as 2000 in the Equal Status Act. It covered sexual orientation discrimination and harassment in similarly loose and vague terms. I am not aware that there has been any abuse or that any problem has arisen in the Irish Republic, a point made on 11 December when the transitional Assembly had that extraordinary debate on these regulations. The DUP was isolated politically in that debate, the other Northern Ireland political parties speaking in favour of the regulations in the main, while the DUP had its commitment against the regulations. Points were made again and again about, for example, the situation in the Irish Republic.
	The regulations are also not in a vacuum so far as concerns our own law. In 2003 the employment equality regulations dealing with sexual orientation were passed in virtually identical form. All that the Government have done is to extend them to education, goods, services, facilities and public sector duties. In the way that they have done for gender, race and religion, they have now done the same for sexual orientation. So far as I am aware, there has been no problem in the interpretation and application of the 2003 regulations. No noble Lord today has suggested to the contrary.
	I am not an uncritical supporter of what the Government are doing. On behalf of my party I should make that clear. In the first place, although it is now academic, we believe that there should have been a single equality Bill which put together all the different strands and could have been, therefore, a coherent piece of legislation rather than bits and pieces in regulations one after the other. In that way, the public and Members of both Houses might have understood better the pattern of legislation. But that is water under the bridge.
	I am also concerned, as are other noble Lords, about the vaguely defined concept of harassment. As has been said, I moved successfully the amendment to the then Equality Bill which removed the concept of religious harassment, mainly because of my concern for free speech and the divisiveness of having one religion pitted against another in the county court with no filter leading to compensatory remedies. That seems mischievous and to do no good. I very much hope that our support today for the harassment provisions in these regulations is not interpreted by the Government as a green light for support by us for doing the same thing with religious harassment. Religious harassment is different. It implicates free speech and religious practices in a completely different way. The reason that I think that the Government were right in the consultation to change their minds as they did about sexual orientation harassment becoming a civil wrong is because, as the noble Lord, Lord Smith, among others, pointed out, when you harass a person because they are gay you are harassing them for something with which they are born. When you harass a woman because she is a woman, it is because of her gender. When you harass someone because of their race, it is because of their birthright. Because harassment against gays is a particularly widespread social evil in this country,it seems to me that the Government were rightduring the consultation to change their minds. They were open-minded. They had reservations to begin with.
	The Government have been criticised this evening about the consultation, and it will be for the Minister to answer the criticisms that have been made. However, in fairness, I would like to point out that the consultation led the Government to widen the exceptions in favour of freedom of religion. They therefore used the consultation process in an open-minded way. I believe that they gave too many concessions to faith groups, just as they did in the employment equality regulations, but that is again water under the bridge. It will be for courts in due course to decide whether what has been done is compatible with the Human Rights Act, but that is for the future.
	The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, mentioned the judicial review proceeding. That has nothing to do with the matter we are concerned with this evening. The judge in Northern Ireland refused an application on judicial review for an interim order to hold up making the regulations law. He said that he was willing to hear arguments of all kinds in March, but was not willing to impede the legislative process. We are therefore completely free this evening to take our own view of the matter.
	Finally, no noble Lord has mentioned the extraordinary debate that took place in the transitional Assembly on 11 December. A great deal has been said about the position of the churches, but what about the position of the politicians, the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland? I urge your Lordships to read that rather dispiriting debate, and if noble Lords do, they will see that the Alliance Party, the SDLP, Sinn Fein and the Progressive Unionist Party all spoke in favour of the regulations. It was the DUP that opposed them. There was a tied vote so the regulations stood. We have the benefit not only of the consultation but of the consultation with the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland. Therefore, let it not be said that we are somehow now riding roughshod. It is not our fault that the politicians in Northern Ireland have not got their act together sufficiently to be able to have their Assembly back again, but the sooner they do that, the better. Meanwhile, we are here to protect fundamental rights, and I hope that this evening we will defeat the Motion roundly.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, it is always disconcerting to follow such an elegant speaker as the noble Lord, Lord Lester. We have heard some very passionate, well argued speeches in the House tonight. This party is not whipped; we have a free vote. My view, and this party's point of view, is that there are some key issues relating to the way in which in recent times, under the present Secretary of State, the Government have been attempting to handle Northern Ireland legislation. Those who listen to Northern Ireland debates on a regular basis will know exactly what I am talking about and will have heard me say it before.
	However, to make the point, where we come from, this is not a political issue. There are strongly held views, and we accept that, so I do not intend to detain the House for very long. That said, these regulations have aroused considerable controversy inside and outside Parliament, and the reasons why have been made clear tonight by the many speakers from different angles and different points of view. All the speakers, including, to some extent, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, have qualms about whether the Government have got this right.
	At this stage, I have several questions to which I want precise answers from the Minister—I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. Before that, I shall say something that has already been said, but I shall repeat it. It relates to the way in which these regulations have been introduced in Northern Ireland. As with the new rating system, there is a very strong feeling back home in Northern Ireland that Northern Ireland is being used as a testing ground for Great Britain. I see the noble Baroness, Lady Blood, nodding.
	As the Government have no votes in Northern Ireland and, deplorably, no intention of seeking any, they simply continue to run Northern Ireland by diktat, irrespective of local opinion. Of course, the standard government reply is that politicians should agree on the restoration of the Assembly—well,they have not helped it much recently—yet I see no reason why these regulations had to be rushed through in Northern Ireland with minimal consultation prior to the possible restoration of the Assembly on 26 March. In case anybody wonders why I said that the Government have not helped very much, the Prime Minister's outburst in the Irish Times was not helpful at all and led Ian Paisley to contradict him at a very delicate time.
	I ask noble Lords to contrast what the Government are doing in Northern Ireland with the position in England and Wales. First, we were given a consultation period of eight weeks in Northern Ireland; in England, it was 12 weeks. Here in England, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government delayed, as has already been said, the introduction of the regulations so that they could be properly debated. In the other place, she said:
	"It is only right that we take the time to consider properly such a complex issue"—
	and we have heard how complex it is tonight—
	"so that we provide protection against discrimination in a way that is effective and appropriate and which gets the balance right so that people are able to hold religious views and beliefs".—[Official Report, Commons, 19/10/06; col. 1014.]
	Nobody could disagree with those good intentions, yet the Government have sought to push the equivalent regulations for Northern Ireland through Parliament under the negative resolution procedure, thus attempting to deny any debate whatever. That is the arrogance of Mr Hain.
	It is due only to the pressure put on the Government by my honourable friend the shadow Northern Ireland Secretary and parliamentary colleagues from Northern Ireland that the regulations for Northern Ireland are being debated at all, after they have effectively been introduced. Once again, Northern Ireland is being treated shabbily and arrogantly by this Government when it comes to the method of introducing legislation.
	I shall raise a few points about the regulations over which there is a genuine lack of understanding and clarity, and which have caused concern. The first is about the provisions relating to harassment, which has been at the top of most speakers' agenda tonight. The Minister will know that this matter has exercised a number of people, and it was raised on the radio this morning by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern.
	The Government initially indicated that they were not inclined to include these provisions. Will the noble Lord tell us what moved the Secretary of State once again to change his mind on a statement that he had made only a few days previously? Considerable concern has been expressed about what precisely might constitute harassment. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, was eloquent on that subject, but, I believe, had some doubts as to how these provisions might be interpreted. The very broad way in which they are drafted also leaves open the possibility of a flood of test cases. For example, could a minister or priest who refused to serve communion to somebody on the ground that homosexual acts are sinful be sued for harassment? Will the Minister tell us how he thinks that can be avoided? What safeguards exist for people who simply act in accordance with what they sincerely believe to be the literal truth of the Gospel?
	The Government talk about getting the balance right between effective protection from discrimination and the rights of people to their sincerely held religious beliefs and convictions. But what safeguards are there, to use an example that has already been given, for a church-based adoption society that refuses to place a child for adoption with a gay or lesbian couple? What about a church-run housing society that refuses a double room to a gay or lesbian couple? What about the position of faith-based schools, where there is potential for conflict with the regulations due to sincerely held religious beliefs and convictions?
	Much emphasis has been placed on the position of those running guest houses, about which we have heard a lot tonight. What about guest houses whose owners refuse to let rooms to any unmarried couple? For the purposes of these regulations, can they still refuse to let rooms to people who are unmarried but in a civil partnership? Again, so much in the legislation is vague and will inevitably lead to test cases. Knowing the population in Northern Ireland, I can assure noble Lords that there will be those who want to test it, push it and try it.
	What will be the position of church halls or Northern Ireland's Orange halls? Will they be exempt on the basis of sincerely held religious beliefs and convictions? Many church halls and Orange halls in Northern Ireland are hired out to non-church groups for dance classes and keep fit, to cite two examples, and political meetings are regularly held in Orange halls. But neither church halls nor Orange halls would be hired out to groups or people who are fundamentally at odds with the organisations' Christian ethos or sincerely held religious beliefs and convictions. I fear that that is yet more scope for litigation.
	As I made clear earlier, these regulations are the subject of a free vote for my party. Nothing I have said today on their detail should be taken to indicate a party view. That said, my personal view is that the way in which these regulations have been handled is yet another example of the Government's deaf, uncaring arrogance to the people of Northern Ireland. The current regulations should be abandoned and the Government should develop new regulations that properly balance sexual orientation and religious liberty rights following a proper consultation process, followed up with full parliamentary debate, as proposed by the Minister in another place when referring to proposed legislation for England, to which I have already referred. The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, made it very clear that we could find ourselves in the ridiculous position of being a small part of the United Kingdom with a totally different set of standards and rules from those that will come out of the legislative process for the rest of the United Kingdom.
	This has been a wonderful debate. It has been a great honour that so many people have taken time to speak on what is at base a Northern Ireland issue but one that has clearly touched the whole community of the kingdom. I have sought to raise a few concerns expressed to me and many colleagues in both Houses. I look forward to the Minister's response.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am most grateful for noble Lords' contributions and will do my level best to answer all their specific questions. I do not intend to speak for long, but I wish to put on record the detailed answers to those questions. So much of what has been said outside this House about the regulations is inaccurate. Some things have been said in ignorance of what has actually happened regarding these regulations. It is important to get it right.
	I wish to start with some procedural points. This is not the Government riding roughshod over Northern Ireland. It is a negative resolution for one reason only: direct rule. If this resolution were being taken in the Northern Ireland Assembly, it would be a draft affirmative resolution. Under the rules of direct rule, primary legislation ends up as an Order in Council—unsatisfactory, but that is the rule—and an affirmative resolution ends up as a negative resolution. It will be put slightly differently in the other place for GB legislation—as it is not direct rule, the procedure is slightly different. We are following the rules set out for direct rule. We wish there was not direct rule, but that is in the hands of Northern Ireland politicians not the Government.
	Only the noble Lord, Lord Lester, referred to the fact that these regulations—which are what we are debating tonight, not an idea or resolution—were debated for a half day in the transitional Assembly in Northern Ireland on 11 December, less than a month ago. There is a full Hansard record of that debate. The motion was similar to what it is tonight—that is, to withdraw the regulations and leave the issue to be determined by the Assembly. It was effectively a motion to nullify. Out of 108 Members, the vote was 39 to 39. As such it was a dead heat and therefore was not carried; there was no majority.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said, the mix of parties in favour of the regulations included the mainly nationalist parties. It also included the late David Ervine. There was a mix of party-political views in favour of these regulations by the elected politicians, the very people that we keep saying ought to make the decisions in Northern Ireland and get back and do the full job they are paid for. That happened and nobody referred to it in this debate. Indeed, one or two noble Lords said it was a tragedy and that the elected politicians of Northern Ireland had not had an opportunity to debate this. It is there on the record. I have to make that absolutely clear.
	One of the points made related to procedure. There are some misnomers as, since I left the other place, procedures have changed and I do not always keep up with them. The Great Britain regulations—they will cover England, Scotland and Wales—will be brought forward in due course. The plan was to do both together. The sequence of timing last summer was such that they would be published together and go through the Houses together. As I will explain in a moment, the level of response for Great Britain was far greater than in Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland—I am not devaluing anyone's contribution—the 400 consultation responses were all basically on one very narrow issue, so it was much easier. Because of the agreement the Government have with the CBI and business to bring in secondary legislation and regulations on two specific dates in the year, if we miss the slot for October-November we are then on the next slot, which is around April. That was done for all regulations at the request of business, so that we were not bringing different statutory instruments out every week of the year impinging on the business community. It was part of a deregulatory business, so that is the reason for that consequence of dates.
	I thank everyone who has spoken today. I just want to put on record—

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the Secretary of State has made that abundantly clear on more than one occasion. It is the intention, whatever the case may, to have broad parity between the regulations within the United Kingdom so there should not be any major difficulty with that.
	Before I come to the set piece and answer some of the questions I would just like to run by the House some of the issues these regulations do not cover. They do not impact on the taught curriculum in schools in Northern Ireland—that is a matter for the Department of Education. The regulations cannot lead to the promotion of homosexuality in schools. They are not concerned with what is taught in schools but in ensuring fair and equal access to education and the facilities and services associated with it. It is not the Government's intention to attack religious ethos.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, it would depend on the merits and the circumstances of the case. There is a reasonable test for a responsible person. The courts would make a judgment on that, but these regulations do not impact on the curriculum of what is taught in class—I make that absolutely clear. That is a completely separate issue so far as the law in Northern Ireland is concerned. It is not the Government's intention to attack religious ethos, teaching or practice, and the regulations contain exceptions that protect the doctrinal nature of religious observance. We have applied an exception to the regulations intended to ensure that matters of a doctrinal nature are protected.
	I was asked a specific question by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, about offering the sacrament. The right of a minister to refuse communion is absolutely protected under Regulations 16(3)(b) and 16(4)(a). It is quite clear. The answer is that they would be protected. It is there in the regulations. We have heard criticisms from the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that the exemptions have gone much further than he would have wished.
	In terms of accommodation, I know that there has not been a massive distinction in this, but there has been a throwaway line about "your own home". No one can be forced to live with someone they do not wish to live with. Subject to certain conditions on the size of the property and the permanent residence of the property, that will be protected in the regulations. However, if you are running a commercial enterprise in the United Kingdom, you follow normal rules and you do not discriminate on religion, colour, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation. That is what the regulations are designed for.
	One further point was raised about the consultation. The four main churches had meetings with Ministers on no fewer than three occasions relating to the regulations. Whatever the distance and timing of the consultation—eight weeks—the four main churches had meetings on three separate occasions. Nobody can argue that their main concerns were not met. Indeed, the press release put out by the Evangelical Alliance on 23 November states that it,
	"acknowledges the work done by the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in listening to the concerns of religious organisations and subsequently providing exemptions to ensure that core doctrinal beliefs are not undermined".
	The idea that churches and those of faith have been ignored and not been party to consultation or discussion does not stand up to examination.
	The regulations have been drafted to allow for the views and opinions of religious groups and organisations to be protected where it is necessary to comply with doctrine. We do not accept the arguments put forward that churches will be forced to admit as members people who they do not wish to belong to their church where that desire is motivated by their sincerely held religious views. Regulation 16 is specific on that point: no church or other religious group will as a result of the regulations be required to bless civil partnerships or undertake any sacramental or other core religious practice or observance that conflicts with their beliefs. That could not be more specific in dealing with the myths. I thought that it was a sin to tell a lie.